KOP News # 1153

Judge says he does not trust former Liverpool owners Hicks and Gillett

• High court judge criticises Tom Hicks and George Gillett
• Mr Justice Smith overseeing latest phase of litigation over sale

A high court judge has criticised the former Liverpool owners George Gillett (left) and Tom Hicks. Photograph: Peter Byrne/PA Archive/PA Photos

A high court judge has said he does not trust the two American businessmen who used to own Liverpool.

Mr Justice Peter Smith said Tom Hicks and George Gillett had demonstrated that they would "abuse" the court process if it suited them.

The Texas-based businessmen lost control of Liverpool when the club was sold to New England Sports Ventures – headed by another American, John W Henry – in a £300m deal in October 2010.

Hicks and Gillett tried and failed to block the sale before launching damages claims in which they alleged that the club was sold at a "substantial undervalue". They claimed the Royal Bank of Scotland and some then Liverpool directors had deliberately blocked their attempts to refinance. RBS disputes the allegations.

In March, RBS asked Mr Justice Peter Smith to declare them not guilty of "any dishonesty or corruption". Lawyers representing RBS said Hicks and Gillett had alleged a "grand conspiracy" but failed to produce any evidence.

The bank asked for declarations of innocence at a high court hearing in London. Mr Justice Peter Smith then adjourned that hearing to allow lawyers representing Hicks and Gillett to study documentation produced by RBS.

However RBS was opposed to a request from the pair's legal team to give their clients "unrestricted access" to the documentation, arguing that, as an American lawyer representing the pair had misled an American court in October 2010, they could not be trusted with the documents. Mr Justice Peter Smith sided with RBS.

"In my view that was and remains a legitimate concern," he said. "They are entitled to be fearful about potential misconduct." He said RBS was entitled to have the privacy of its documents maintained.

He said that while Hicks and Gillett could not have unrestricted access, their British lawyers could study the documents and take instructions from their clients.

He added that Hicks and Gillett had given "no credible explanation" for their lawyer's behaviour in 2010 and, referencing Fawlty Towers, suggested they had taken a "Manuelesque, 'I know nothing'" stance.

He said: "I do not trust [Hicks and Gillett]. They have demonstrated … that if it suits them they will abuse the process."

Mr Justice Peter Smith said Hicks and Gillett had sought a "restraining order" in Texas – after failing to block the Liverpool sale at the high court in England. He said an American lawyer representing the businessmen had "misled" a Texan court twice in October 2010, "untruthfully" saying an application could not be made in London because it was "late" and courts were closed and saying a similar application had not been made in the UK when it had.

"No credible explanation has been given, ever, as to how it was a lawyer retained by the defendants was able to mislead the court in that way," said the judge. "Despite numerous opportunities, the defendants have not availed themselves of the opportunity to explain how it came about."